McConnell Center Distinguished Speaker Series
Senator Kelly Ayotte
2014
Gary Gregg: [00:00:00] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. No one’s ever stood for
me before when I walked in. [audience laughter] I see they’re waiting. Ladies and
gentlemen, please welcome our Provost, Shirley Willihnganz, accompanied by U.S.
Senator Mitch McConnell and U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte. [applause]
Shirley Willihnganz: [00:00:35] Good morning, everyone. Please be seated. It’s great to
see so many of you here today, and on behalf of the university, I’m very excited to thank
the senator once again for bringing another wonderful speaker to our university. This is
one of the great things about being at UofL. It’s an opportunity for us to keep learning
and keep engaging with the important events of the day. None of this could happen
without our good friend Senator Mitch McConnell through the McConnell Center for
Leadership. We have had just a string of amazing people here at the university. I always
tell our students that if you come to UofL, one of the advantages that you’ve got is
hearing from these amazing people who are forming public policy and shaping our
democracy, and there are very few universities where students have the opportunity to
hear from so many important political figures as we have the opportunity to do right here
at UofL.
So, Senator, thank you so much. This is truly an exceptional opportunity for all of
us here to do this. First elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984, Senator McConnell is now in
1
his thirtieth year of representing Kentucky in Washington. Let’s give him a round of
applause for that incredible service. [applause] He currently serves as the Senate
Republican Leader, the highest-ranking Republican in Washington. It’s a position he’s
held since 2006, and he’s the fifteenth Senate Republican Leader and only the second
Kentuckian to lead his party in this seat. As most of you know, Senator McConnell has
also been an incredible friend to the university, and I always tell people if all of our
friends were like Senator McConnell, we would be in very, very good shape. So without
further ado, I will turn it over to Senator Mitch McConnell. [applause]
Senator Mitch McConnell: [00:02:39] Well, good morning, everyone. Thank you for
being here, and thank you, Shirley. You and Jim Ramsey have done a fabulous job of
taking UofL to a new level, and we’re deeply grateful. As a graduate of this university, I
wouldn’t recognize it, what it’s become. It’s an extraordinary success story. And Gary
Gregg, when we formed the McConnell Center twenty years ago, I had no idea you could
do the job that you’ve done, and so thank you as well for the great job you’ve done.
In twenty-five years, today’s McConnell Scholars will be contributing to our
nation’s security. Foremost among the questions they will have to face will be questions
of national security and foreign affairs, and that’s why I’m particularly pleased to
introduce our distinguished speaker today. At a time when many of our countrymen and
women have turned inward to focus exclusively on domestic issues, Senator Kelly Ayotte
of New Hampshire has rapidly emerged as a highly respected voice on international
security issues. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she is the
ranking member, that is, the top Republican, on the Armed Service Subcommittee on
2
Readiness. She also serves on the Budget Committee, where her top priority is to get
America’s fiscal house in order. She votes for common sense budget reform, and against
programs we don’t need and can’t afford. And coming from a small business family
herself, she understands government must do all it can to create an environment where
it’s easier to create jobs.
Senator Ayotte has led from the front on every crucial foreign policy issue in
recent years, whether she is demanding answers for the root cause of the tragedy in
Benghazi or criticizing oppressive regimes in states like Iran, North Korea, and Syria
or—
[cell phone rings]
McConnell: [00:04:39] Can you imagine that? [audience laughter] Or speaking about—
it must have been the president. [audience laughter] Actually, that doesn’t happen very
often. [audience laughter]
Or criticizing oppressive regimes in states like Iran, North Korea, and Syria or
speaking about the deeply troubling nature of the Russian aggression we’re seeing here in
Ukraine over the last few days. She also fights for the nation to meet its responsibilities
to support and care for America’s military members and their families. And some of you
may already know this, but she’s a military spouse herself.
Behind it all is a lot of hard work. Gaining expertise in international affairs really
can’t be done on the cheap, and Senator Ayotte has shown incredible dedication. In
short, if the question is vital to American security, Senator Ayotte is there to speak for
3
our team. She approaches her role as the senator from New Hampshire much like she
tackled the role as a prosecutor in the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, with
discipline and a tireless work ethic. She rose to become the head of the office’s
Homicide Division. Her success in the courtroom earned her an appointment as the
Granite State’s first female attorney general in 2004. First appointed to that position by a
Republican governor, she was twice reappointed by a Democratic governor. Kelly has an
independent streak that New Hampshire voters can’t get enough of. After all, this is a
state with the motto “Live free or die.”
Her run for the Senate in 2010 was her first-ever bid for public office, and she
won with 60—60—percent of the vote and carried every single county. Less than four
years later, she’s one of the first public figures people turn to for her views on foreign
affairs as well as her advocacy for more fiscal responsibility in government. She’s one of
the leading women of the GOP on the national stage, and in 2012 she was promoted by
many for vice president.
Because she’s so respected, I name Senator Kelly Ayotte as one of my counsels in
the Senate Republican leadership. I trust her judgment on the issues of the day and her
ability to lead opinion among our fellow senators, all hundred of them leaders in their
own right, but not always willing to be led. And I know she will have some sage advice
for the McConnell Scholars and for the rest of us here today about America’s role in the
world. Join me in welcoming the senator from New Hampshire. [applause]
Senator Kelly Ayotte: [00:07:38] I want to really thank Mitch McConnell for his
leadership. I’m deeply, deeply honored to be here with all of you today, and I know it’s
4
St. Patrick’s Day as well, so let me just wish you all a Happy St. Patrick’s Day. I lost my
luggage or I’d have green on.
I’m very glad to be here at the McConnell Center. It is impressive what is
happening here at UofL, and just to hear the number of students that are engaged on
important issues that impact the nation, and it’s altogether fitting that a Center devoted to
preparing future generations of Kentucky leaders is named in Senator McConnell’s
honor.
I’d like to thank Provost Willihnganz for having me here today on campus.
Thank you so much. I would also very much like to thank Senator McConnell for having
the honor of being able to address you today, and Dr. Gregg for inviting me to deliver
remarks this morning.
[00:08:36] Through his strong, tireless, and principled leadership, Senator Mitch
McConnell has earned his place as the Senate Republican Leader, and I can tell you, as
someone who got elected in 2010, he has been someone who I really have looked to in
terms of someone who conducts himself in a way that we can be proud, someone who
mentors new senators that are coming in so that we can understand how to be effective
and get things done in the Senate. And I’ve always been impressed how Mitch is guided
by an unwavering commitment to our Constitution. He is someone who has the courage
and fortitude to fight for what he believes is right, even when it’s very difficult. He’s
also someone who has really earned the trust and respect of senators on both sides of the
aisle. That’s how you become a leader in the United States Senate.
When Washington had been mired in gridlock and we have had to get things done
for the nation, time and time and again, Mitch has stepped forward. He has found a way
5
to break through the gridlock to get things done for the nation. When we have been on
the cliff of going over things that really mattered and would make a very big difference,
he’s been a statesman and done difficult things, and I’ve been very impressed with the
way that he has really tried to bring us together to get things done for the nation.
[00:10:06] Senators know that for Mitch McConnell, the priority, although he is
the Republican Leader in Washington, is really the people here in Kentucky. Kentucky
always comes first. He loves this state which he has devoted his life to serving, as
evidenced by his commitment here to this university and his commitment in preparing the
future leaders of Kentucky. He understands that the future depends on having prepared
leaders with the extraordinary ability and sound character to do what is right for the
nation. That’s what this Center is devoted to, and that’s why I’m so pleased to be here
today in this institute that is named in honor of Senator McConnell.
Now, today, I would like to talk to you about—as I thought about talking to—I
know there are a few college students in the audience and others who have come to the
address today. But about twenty-five years ago, I was sitting in a college lecture at the
Pennsylvania State University, and I was a political science student at that time. At that
time, we were watching the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, and
when I was growing up—and I know many in the room would say the same thing—we
lived with the very real threat of a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union, and our country
benefitted from the moral clarity and strategic wisdom of a Republican president that I
know both Senator McConnell and I admire very much, and that was the strategic, the
wisdom, and the strength of Ronald Reagan.
President Reagan was a strong advocate for American power and exceptionalism.
6
He understood that only America could lead the free world and that when America leads,
our country is safer, more prosperous, and the world is more secure. As President
Reagan once said, “We maintain peace through our strength. Weakness only invites
aggression.” This touchstone guided Reagan’s approach to the Soviet Union, and, as a
result, he brought the Cold War to a successful conclusion. And while the Soviet Union
is gone, I think we all share the concerns of what we see happening today and the threats
that are emanating from Moscow. These threats will have far-reaching consequences for
our national security, for the peace of the world. The most prominent example we have
all seen the headlines on, and that is right now the crisis in Ukraine. I would like to
spend some time today discussing the situation in Ukraine, our relationship with Russia,
President Vladimir Putin, and why the outcome in Ukraine matters to the United States of
America, and I think that’s a very important question as we approach these foreign policy
issues.
[00:13:33] As Senator McConnell said in the opening, often now many people
want to turn inward and not think about America’s role in the world, but America’s role
in the world is very, very important in terms of the safety and prosperity of our country.
And things that happen overseas, as we understand, can quickly come home to us if we
do not have a strong leadership role in the world. Right now in Ukraine, if we look at
where we are, I think we have to put it in the context of the administration’s policy
overall toward Russia. Under the Obama administration, U.S. policy toward Russia has
really been based largely on a misguided premise, in my view, a premise that past strains
in our relationship between the United States and Russia were, in part, America’s fault, as
if Russia’s uncooperative actions resulted from justifiable resentment of the Putin
7
government regarding U.S. policy and power.
As a result, when President Obama came into office, he pursued a policy of
accommodation with the Kremlin. This policy was called the reset policy. Looking at
this policy in the most charitable light, I believe the administration came in thinking that
if we come forward with a new policy that is more conciliatory toward Russia, then we
will then have a better relationship with Russia, and Russia will be a better player not
only toward the United States of America but toward the world. Unfortunately, what we
have seen is that the opposite is true. The reset policy has actually resulted in the
Russians interpreting our conciliatory measures as weakness and that this weakness has
really been taken advantage of by President Putin.
[00:15:44] So let me set the stage of what has happened from the time that the
administration really declared this new reset policy with Russia that has led us to where
we are today. Since taking office, the Obama administration has offered concession after
concession, in the hopes that doing so would result, again, as I mentioned, a better
relationship between our two countries. I want to give you three examples that I think set
the stage for where we are today and some of the actions that Russia has taken, including
the most recent invasion of the Ukraine.
In his first year in office, President Obama abandoned U.S. plans to deploy U.S.
NATO missile defenses in Europe. He did this despite the fact that our close allies,
Poland and the Czech Republic, demonstrated great courage in actually agreeing to host
those missile defense sites there. But when the Obama administration came into office,
they made the decision not to go forward with those two sites, despite the fact that both
the Poland government and the Czech Republic government really had to put it on the
8
line to actually say that they would host those two missile defense sites. So what
message did that send to our allies?
[00:17:13] Then again, in 2010, really brushing aside continued Russian
occupation of the former Soviet state of Georgia, which Russia invaded in 2008, so as we
look at Ukraine, we have to think of the context of Russia having invaded the territory of
Georgia in 2008. But what did the Obama administration do? The Obama administration
actually pushed through a controversial civil nuclear trade agreement with the Russians
that had previously been stalled. Why had it been stalled? Because of the Russian
invasion of Georgia and also because Russia was actually cooperating with Iran on its
nuclear program, unfortunately. So instead of keeping those negotiations stalled, the
administration, as a conciliatory measure towards Russia, went forward with this
agreement, and in doing so, in pushing this civil trade agreement which encouraged
greater cooperation with Russia related to nuclear reactors in the nuclear fuel cycle,
something that certainly Russia wanted, this is what President Obama said. President
Obama said that, “The situation in Georgia need no longer be considered an obstacle.”
The president made this statement despite the fact that thousands of Russian troops
continue to occupy Georgian territory. The message was clearly that America would
look the other way on Russian transgressions, and it’s clearly the message that Vladimir
Putin has taken.
One final example, and there actually are more, was the administration’s
willingness to overlook a potential Russian violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces, or so-called INF, Treaty, which was a landmark treaty that was entered into in
1987 as an arms-control treaty. They did this at the time there were potential violations
9
of the INF Treaty that came forward, but the administration at the time was negotiating a
new nuclear agreement with the Russian government called the New Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty, or the START Treaty. Many of you may have heard of that treaty.
[00:19:40] The New START Treaty places limits on the number of deployed
intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and
heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. It also puts limits on the number of
deployed nuclear warheads. Yet at the time, as The New York Times has recently
reported and early this year suggested, when the administration was aggressively
lobbying the Senate—and I can assure you that many of my Republican colleagues had
serious reservations about the New START Treaty—when this lobbying was going on,
the Obama administration either knew or strongly suspected that Russia may be violating
the terms of the INF Treaty, yet they did not raise this issue with the Russians, and, in my
view, they did not sufficiently inform Congress of this potential violation.
So from giving up needed missile defense sites in Europe, to overlooking Russia’s
continued occupation of Georgia in order to pursue a civil nuclear trade agreement, to the
willingness to ignore and bury Russian violations of the INF Treaty in order to gain
ratification of a new treaty, the New START Treaty on arms control reductions with the
Russians, the Obama administration, in the hopes that there would be a new relationship
with Russia, made concession after concession after concession.
And so I think the simple question we have to ask ourselves in evaluating the
reset policy is did we get anything beneficial in return. Did the Russians, in fact, return
what was conciliatory measures by our government to try to pave a new way with Russia
with the examples that I just gave you? And did we, in fact, get a reaction from Putin
10
that is one that would forge a better relationship with our country? I think on every front,
looking at it objectively, we would have to say the answer is no. Over the last five years,
Putin has pocketed these concessions, interpreting them as U.S. weakness and a green
light for Putin to go forward with his own interests, even if those interests conflict with
the territorial sovereignty of other countries, even if those interests conflict with our
interests and the interests of the world, and even if those interests actually make the world
less safer.
[00:22:18] And let’s look at what’s happening right now in Syria. It is a horrible
humanitarian tragedy what is happening in Syria. In fact, a year ago, I had the
opportunity to travel to Jordan and to visit the refugee camps on the border between
Jordan and Syria. Literally, if you look at the conditions, we are doing our best to
support the refugees there, but they are flowing in at such a fast rate that it is putting a
tremendous burden on our allies, not just Jordan, but other countries in the area.
This is a humanitarian tragedy of epic proportions for women, children, people
who are being murdered, raped. You can’t imagine the horrific things that are happening
in Syria. And who is enabling Bashar Assad, the Assad regime, to continue murdering
his own people in Syria? No one less than Vladimir Putin, who, in an effort to protect
Russian interests in Syria, because Russia has actually a naval base in Syria, in Tartus,
that is important to them, they also essentially have economic relations with Syria that
matter to them. So instead of working with the international community to have a
peaceful outcome in Syria, Russia has time and time and again blocked U.N. resolutions
to address the crisis in Syria and, in fact, as we stand here today, continues to provide
arms to the Assad regime against our interests in Syria.
11
In the area of missile defense, the Kremlin’s response has been equally troubling.
The U.S. and NATO had sought to work together to develop a European missile defense
shield against potential ballistic missile threats from Iran, and these ballistic missile
threats are real. The most recent intelligence that we have gotten in terms of the Iranian
missile threat, before the Armed Services Committee, which is public, which is that Iran
could have the capability to have an ICBM that could hit the United States by 2015. So
these issues in terms of the Iranian missile development is very, very important.
[00:24:44] So we were trying to work together with NATO to develop European
missile defenses to help against the Iranian threat, and while this system could not defend
against a Russian nuclear missile attack, and therefore did not impact the Russian nuclear
deterrent, Russian civilian and military leaders have responded with threats of preemptive
attacks against us and our allies if we work together to make sure that we’re protected
against the Iranian threat. Not only has the Kremlin threatened to strike missile defense
sites in Europe that don’t threaten Russia or undermine its nuclear deterrent, but the
Kremlin has aggressively developed ballistic missiles and cruise missiles that threaten
western Europe and could potentially, again, violate the INF Treaty. And in Georgia, as
I’ve previously mentioned, thousands of Russian troops continue to occupy territory
which is within the country of Georgia, and, in fact, Russia has erected fences and other
physical barriers in South Ossetia in attempt to solidify the Kremlin’s land grab in
violation of Georgian territorial integrity.
Let’s talk a minute about human rights. People often wonder what should our
role be in terms of human rights, and I am in the camp that I believe that we need to call
human rights for what they are, and we need to be clear that when countries violate the
12
basic human rights of other citizens, that we are going to speak clearly for the rights of
other people as this country, in the tradition of Ronald Reagan.
On human rights, the Kremlin has a terrible record on human rights, and it’s
probably best summarized by the case of Sergei Magnitski. He was a Russian auditor
who had investigated Russian officials for corruption. He was arrested on politically
motivated charges, he was tortured, he was neglected, and ultimately he died in a Russian
prison. The U.S. government did take action as a result of the death of Sergei Magnitski.
What we did is we worked together to pass the Sergei Magnitski Rule of Law
Accountability Act, and that law was actually signed in and has been enhanced, and there
needs to be more done on that law.
[00:27:18] When that law was signed, do you know what Putin did in reaction to
that? What this law essentially does is it sanctions those who acted to torture Sergei
Magnitski or those who worked with them and other human rights violators. So in
response, of all the things that President Putin could do, he stopped United States
adoptions from Russia. So I have constituents, and I won’t be surprised if Senator
McConnell has constituents as well, who were going to adopt Russian children. And
we’re talking about children that didn’t have a home anywhere else, that no Russian
family wanted to adopt. In fact, U.S. citizens are often adopting Russian children with
disabilities that otherwise would not have a home. So Putin’s response to our addressing
human rights has been, “We’re not going to allow Russian children to go in good
American homes,” and, in fact, he stopped all adoptions, unfortunately. So as we stand
where we are, you can see that time and time and again that Putin has acted against our
interests in spite of a reach out of a hand when the president came into office and the
13
reset policy.
Recently, in February, Moscow has further detained, basically under politically
motivated charges, additional opposition leaders. In fact, in January, I had the experience
of Boris Nemtsov coming to my office. He’s a Russian political leader, but on the
opposite side of Putin. In January he came to see me, and he came to me and asked me to
expand those who are being sanctioned under the Sergei Magnitski Act because of
Russian human rights violations. And do you know that in February he was detained?
He went back to Russia. He was detained. It’s very disturbing when you meet with
someone who is a leader who is trying to protect other human rights, and then you find
out that he has actually been detained. But this is what happens, unfortunately, in Russia.
And finally, we cannot set aside the fact that Russia is harboring Edward Snowden,
Edward Snowden, who should be brought back to the United States of America and
extradited to face justice here, and instead they’ve allowed Snowden to use his perch
from Russia to further damage U.S. national security.
[00:29:59] In summary, when we review the concessions the Obama
administration has made to Moscow as the policy of reset, I think we have to conclude
it’s been a failure, and it is time for America to reset the reset, because Putin only
respects strength, and he has viewed each concession we have made as weakness instead
of a new era of relations between our two countries.
I think one of the reasons that this has failed is because the Obama administration
has not really reflected on who they are dealing with. So I know many of you who are
here may have negotiated a deal, whether it’s in business or another context, or dealt with
someone on the other side of a transaction. One of the most important things you need to
14
do in that context is understand who you’re dealing with, right, understand what their
interests are and understand what their goals are. And Putin is a former KGB colonel.
He is someone who’s an ardent nationalist. He’s disappointed with what happened with
the territory that was lost as a result of the end of the Cold War. He resents Western
triumphalism. He doesn’t like that we talk about the fact that we won the Cold War. He
doesn’t like the expansion of NATO eastward. And Putin sees international security as a
zero-sum game, and he views concessions from this administration as evidence of
weakness and an invitation for further aggression.
[00:31:36] That is the backdrop upon which we have to look at what is happening
in the Ukraine right now. The Ukraine is a country that occupies a very important
strategic position between Russia and the NATO member states of Hungary, Poland,
Romania, and Slovakia. Ukraine’s population is 45 million people, and it’s 78 percent
ethnic Ukrainian and 17 percent ethnic Russian. Russian-speaking Ukrainians, some of
them identify culturally with Russia, and they reside largely in the eastern and southern
Ukraine, while Ukrainian nationalism is very strong in the central and western Ukraine
where certainly the country as a whole has sought closer ties to Europe.
Ukraine achieved independence in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union, and in
1994, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed what’s called the
Budapest Memorandum. Under this agreement, the Ukraine gave up its Soviet-era
nuclear weapons, and in return, the signatories to the agreement, including Russia,
confirmed their commitment to Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing
borders. The signatories, including Russia, also committed to refrain from the threat of
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine and to
15
refrain from economic coercion.
So you can see already with the Russian invasion of Crimea, which is a portion of
Ukraine, which we’ll talk a little bit more about, that this is a violation of the Budapest
Memorandum and really what the Ukrainian people expected when they signed on to
that. Many Russian nationalists, including certainly Putin, have never really reconciled
themselves to the idea of an independent and sovereign Ukraine, yet many Ukrainians are
eager to assert their independence and end Moscow’s dominance over the Ukraine.
[00:33:48] So what we see in the most recent conflict has really been a struggle
between Ukraine going to the east or Ukraine going to the west, and, in fact, the
Ukrainian people under the time of then President Yanukovych, who was a pro-Russian
president who was in power, he was about to sign on to an historic trade and political
agreement with the European Union, and that, of course, would have brought the Ukraine
more towards the west. And Russia didn’t like that, so Russia approached President
Yanukovych and offered him certain economic concessions, including concessions
related to fuel and natural gas. This is a very important issue for the Ukraine, in terms of
having Russian natural gas. So Yanukovych rejected the EU agreement, and as a result,
the people of Ukraine took to the streets, and that’s where we ended up with the
demonstrations we saw with people standing up for their rights and wanting sovereignty
in Ukraine.
As a result, there were many violent crackdowns, but eventually Yanukovych was
forced to flee. There was a new government that has been formed and new elections
have been set. And guess what? The Russian didn’t like that. And what we saw as a
result of that—and many of us stayed tune to the Olympics. How many of you watched
16
the Sochi Olympics? I’m sure many of you did. Well, at the close of the Sochi
Olympics, I actually went on Fox News Sunday and I said, “Stay tuned. You see what’s
happening in Ukraine right now? Russia has an important naval base in Crimea, and that
naval base is important to them. Crimea is a part of the Ukraine that has many Russianspeaking individuals there. Many of them certainly associate themselves with Russia.
Watch what Russia will do.”
[00:36:01] And guess what? Four days later, Russia invaded Crimea and
essentially not only just to protect their naval base there, but really to take over the
territory of the sovereign part of Ukraine in Crimea. And make no mistake, this is an
invasion. This isn’t something where there’s any kind of close call of what Russia did
here. This is an invasion of another country. And yesterday, after they invaded Crimea,
Russia basically manufactured a referendum to ask the people of Crimea to vote whether
they wanted to join Russia or whether they wanted to stay in the Ukraine. It wasn’t a real
election. It can’t be a real election when you’re surrounded by Russian troops, and that’s
what the people of Crimea were. They were surrounded by Russian troops. And guess
what? Lo and behold, the people of Crimea voted to join Russia. Well, this is a bogus
referendum, it has no legitimacy, but now the Russians are going to try to use this to—
there will next be a vote in the Russian duma as to whether they will annex Crimea.
So this is a full-fledged invasion. So this is a brazen disregard for the respect of
the territorial sovereignty of another country, it’s a brazen disregard for the Budapest
Memorandum and international law, and the events in Crimea are much more than just a
squabble between two countries over an important piece of real estate. So how do they
fit in the larger context of our country’s national security, and why should we care what
17
happens in Crimea? Here’s why we should care. Allies, enemies, rivals, and terrorists
are watching closely to see whether we will respond and the international community will
respond, and what we will accept and what we won’t accept. Can a bully like Putin
ignore international boundaries and territorial integrity and simply seize what he wants
with force and get away with it? Does the U.S. stand up against aggression, or can you
just go into another country and invade the country, and there are no consequences
whatsoever? Does the U.S. stand with its friends? So we were a signatory to that
memorandum. Does it matter to us at all? Is the U.S. still a great power or is it a power
in decline that issues strong statements but lacks neither the will nor the ability to lead?
[00:38:44] I can assure you that the world is watching to see what we do with
Putin’s aggression, and how and whether we react has implications that are much broader
than just the region of Crimea. First of all, the Iranians are watching. Iran is the largest
state sponsor of terrorism. They are moving forward towards nuclear weapons capability.
The administration is trying to negotiate an agreement with Iran right now to get them to
cease, to end their nuclear program. But the Supreme Leader in Iran, I can assure you, is
watching, whether we care or not that Russia is invading another country. If the Supreme
Leader in Iran gets the message that we aren’t serious about anything that we say and we
aren’t willing to back up any of our actions, then we could have a situation where those
negotiations really end up with nothing and Iran continues to walk toward a nuclear
weapon.
In addition, Beijing, in China, we have seen China be much more aggressive in
the South China Sea, making territorial claims against our allies, including the Japanese,
including the Vietnamese, and that’s a very important part of the world in terms of the
18
freedom of the seas, in terms of the economy of the United States of America and our
allies. So what will Beijing take as a message? Will they take the message, if we don’t
do anything, that they can take whatever territory they want in the South China Sea?
[00:40:22] And most importantly, how will Putin evaluate what we do? The
lessons that Tehran, Beijing, Moscow, and others draw from the events in Ukraine will
certainly shape their actions, but certainly shape the actions of what other players do
around the world, including the most rogue players. Putin will size us up yet again, and if
he comes to view this military invasion of Crimea as a vindication of the fact that every
time we make a concession that he can just push forward, then will he move further into
the territory of Ukraine, into either eastern or southern Ukraine? In fact, Saturday we
have already seen the Russian forces beginning to move beyond Crimea into Ukraine.
They took seizure of a natural gas plant right outside of Crimea. And the question is will
they go further. If Putin concludes that there are little or no costs incurred by this
invasion, and the U.S. lacks the will to back up what it says, he could go further. Not to
mention the other players that I just mentioned to you around the world. What will they
do?
What should be absolutely clear is that it is time for the administration to end the
reset policy. We must reassert American strength before it’s too late, and what this
means is inflicting serious diplomatic and economic consequences on Putin and his inner
circle so that he appreciates that we’re not a paper tiger, that when we tell you we’re
going to do something, we do it. And let me be clear. I’m not talking about direct
military action or boots on the ground, because that’s the first thing someone says to you,
“Well, what, are you going to invade Ukraine?” No, that is not what we’re talking about
19
when we’re talking about serious foreign policy toward Ukraine. What I’m calling for is
a set of serious steps that assure our NATO allies that pressure Russia economically and
also alienate Putin on the international stage, because, frankly, we’ve taken a number of
actions that have given him more stature on the international stage, and we have to
alienate him at this point.
[00:42:50] The administration has taken some initial steps that I do agree with,
and those include the administration’s decision to bolster NATO’s Baltic air-policing
mission. We’ve sent F-15s over there. We’ve sent additional troops in Eastern Europe. I
also know that the vice president is going to visit Poland and other countries there, as I
understand it, to talk about the crisis in Ukraine, so that our presence is important. But
it’s time to do much more, and, in fact, as we came here today, the European Union has
announced that it is going to sanction a number of individuals, and we have announced
that we are going to sanction a number of both Russian and Ukrainian individuals.
However, this really scratches the surface. Here’s the thing about Putin’s inner
circle. A lot of their money actually isn’t in Russia. They rely on the Western banking
system. They rely on the European banking system. And guess where they like to
vacation? Apparently they don’t like to stay in Russia for their vacations. They like to
go to other nice places around the world, and sometimes it’s the United States of
America. They even like to educate their children here often. Well, it is time for us to
step up and say we are going to stop the Russians in terms of the leadership of Putin and
in the oligarchs and his inner circle from banking in the United States of America; we are
going to freeze their assets; we are going to make sure that they can’t have visas to travel,
nor can their family members. We need to take much greater steps in sanctioning Russia
20
economically, and anyone who is involved in the crisis in Ukraine. But it has to go
broader than that; it has to really go to Putin’s inner circle.
[00:44:48] In addition to that, we have to deal with this issue of energy. One of
the strangleholds that Russia has not only on the Ukraine but also has an impact on
Europe is because of Russian natural gas. And guess what? In 2009, the United States of
America actually exceeded Russia in terms of our production of natural gas, and it is time
for the administration to start making sure that it approves all of the exports of natural
gas, that we continue to build our infrastructure to export more natural gas, because we
can make a difference around the world by using American energy instead of allowing
the Russians to continue a stranglehold here.
We need to provide more assistance to the Ukrainian military, give them the
capacity to be in a better position to defend themselves. That’s what it means to stand by
an ally. And then we need to reverse or revisit reversing some of the concessions that
have been made by the administration, including rebasing the missile defense system in
the Czech Republic and in Poland. The president came into office, he said, “We’re not
going to do this,” hoping there’d be a new day with Russia. Well, guess what? There’s
not a new day, and it’s time for him to revisit that decision. And finally, we need to
confront Russia on its violations of the INF Treaty. If we continue to look the other way
when they violate a treaty, how will they ever take us seriously?
As Senator McConnell mentioned, I serve on the Armed Services Committee.
The administration’s recent budget, if we adopt it, will take our armed forces—in other
words, our army—to a size of below World War II levels. What kind of message does
that send to Russia? What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world, in
21
terms of how strong the United States of America is going to be, given the threats that we
face right now?
[00:47:00] And I’m not asking for us to do this alone in terms of protecting the
world. NATO needs to step up as well, and the European countries can’t keep reducing
their defense budgets. They need to step up to the plate. They are facing these threats in
their backyard. And working together, we need to be strong and really send the message
to Putin right now that, “We’re not going to accept more behavior like this. We expect
you to respect the territorial integrity of another country, and we expect you to get out of
Crimea.”
The events in Ukraine represent the most serious crisis in U.S.-Russia relations
since the Cold War, and they remind us of a very important lesson: the world is safer and
more secure when the United States acts from a position of strength, not weakness. It is
time for the administration to abandon its reset policy and reassert American strength in
the tradition of Ronald Reagan. It was President Reagan who once said, “Of the four
wars in my lifetime, none came about because the United States was too strong.” I think
we can all appreciate that and reflect on that.
Putin’s invasion and occupation of Crimea is merely one of the numerous
conflicts and crisis situations around the world that highlights the need for American
leadership backed by strength. As Reagan understood, the best way to keep the peace
and prevent war is to be ready to fight one. As Americans, if we want to continue to
enjoy unprecedented security and prosperity, we must recognize that there is no substitute
for American leadership and strength. Putin and the rest of the world are watching what
we do in Ukraine. I guess the only question we have is what message will we send them,
22
and will we really act to ensure that both our interests and the interests of our allies are
protected.
Thank you so much for having me today. [applause]
Gregg: [00:49:28] Thank you, Senator Ayotte, for those very timely and thoughtprovoking remarks. We have time for just a couple of questions. We have two former
McConnell Scholars that have taken up the questions from the audience, will be asking
them, one of which, probably the only person in the room who’s both been a constituent
of both Senator Ayotte and Senator McConnell, but we won’t start with him.
Dani Smith.
Dani Smith: [00:49:52] Senator, thank you so much for speaking with us this morning.
The first question I have is what’s your reaction to Sheryl Sandberg’s campaign to ban
the word “bossy” as applied to girls?
Ayotte: [00:50:04] Well, in the context of Putin, I think it’s probably good to be bossy.
But I think that the point she’s trying to make is a good point. So being a woman in
leadership—and I also happen to have a nine-year-old daughter—often what is just being
assertive and strong in girls and young women can be called bossy or sometimes even
worse words. And I think that the fact that she’s of such prominence and trying to bring
attention to this issue so that when young girls and young women are assertive, we can
understand that they’re trying to assert their leadership skills and they aren’t being bossy
or other types of words that we could use. In fact, what they are really trying to do is just
23
be in the same position as young men who are in that situation. And I’m glad, actually,
that someone of her prominence is taking this issue up, because we want to encourage
more women in leadership positions.
Gregg: [00:51:07] Jonathan.
Jonathan _____: [00:51:09] Senator, this question comes from a UofL student. “I read
that you signed on to Senator Coats’ resolution to isolate and punish Russia. What are
the benefits of such action, and what possible reactions could Russia have that could
threaten the United States’ national interest?”
Ayotte: [00:51:27] Well, there’s no question, I think, that if Russia—obviously, today I
talked in more detail about what I think we should do. Can Russia react back? Of course
Russian can react back. Some of the reaction that Russia could have would be to, I think,
squeeze Ukraine further on energy, also squeeze Europe further on energy, and that’s
why our energy policy really can matter. Now, we’re not going to immediately be able to
gear up with the type of exports that we need, but we could send a signal to the markets
in terms of saying that the United States of America is ready to really up its game in
terms of natural gas exports and our energy policy.
But what other actions could the Russians take? Afghanistan. So there is an
important—the northern route that we’ve been using, in part, to transport some of our
goods out of Afghanistan as we’re drawing down in Afghanistan, they could shut that
down. However, there is another route we could use, and our commanders are ready for
24
that. I think there are some business relationships that our U.S. companies have with
Russia as well as our European partners that they could, I suppose, take retaliatory
actions for.
[00:52:43] But here’s the choice. I actually think that we should take these
actions, and if Russia retaliates, I think that we have the upper hand in terms of the
money that they have parked in this country, and their economy is largely basically an
economy based on their energy, their oil and natural gas. They don’t have a diversified
economy like we do. And the alternative is not acting, is that we’re going to continue to
see Russian aggression, we’re going to continue to see risks that we will incur, whether
it’s the ayatollahs in Tehran or whether it is the actions in Beijing. So I don’t think we
have an alternative. I think we do have to act, and we cannot ignore this.
Gregg: [00:53:28] Dani.
Smith: [00:53:37] Before I ask my next question, I do want to acknowledge that a
member of our audience is from the southwest Ukraine and wanted to thank you for your
position.
With the next question, there are a lot of the high school students here who really
wanted to know what your motivation and your drive to become a senator, if you could
explain your path to your career.
Ayotte: [00:54:00] Sure. Absolutely. One of the things I would say to some of you who
are in high school or college is find something that you’re passionate about, because
25
you’re much better at something you care about, that matters to you, that you can make a
difference on, and it’s not obvious to everyone. Some people it’s in the business field,
some people it’s in the political sphere, or whatever area, your community.
[00:54:29] But my path, essentially, is one I would have never thought I’d be a
U.S. senator, but I graduated from law school, went into private practice, thought I was
going to make a bunch of money to pay off my student loans, and essentially one day I
got assigned to a big criminal case with a more senior lawyer, and I ended up in a threemonth trial defending a very serious case in federal court and found out that that was
what really got me going, being in the courtroom and wanting to make a difference.
So right after that trial, I got a job as a prosecutor, because I knew that what I
really wanted to do was help victims of crime and try to make a difference for people in
terms of the justice system. And that’s what led me eventually to this path. I found out
that I had a passion for public service, and as each job as I kind of moved up the career
ladder, I was the first—as Mitch mentioned, I was the first woman appointed attorney
general in my state. But I worked my way up through the Attorney General’s Office. I
was a murder prosecutor. I did well prosecuting murder cases, and I kind of worked my
way up the ladder.
I think find something you care about, work hard at it, be good at it, and good
things will happen to you, because opportunities will open up to do the next thing on the
next ladder. But don’t overlook the thing you’re doing now. Do it well, and make sure
that people will notice you if you do it well, and you can move up and succeed. But find
that thing that makes a difference for you. Because I love what I do. I get to get up every
day—and I know that Mitch shares this passion, is that we get to get up every day and do
26
things that make a difference for people in this country, whether it’s on an issue about the
security of the country or whether it’s just helping one of my constituents who’s having a
difficulty with a federal agency. There’s no greater privilege than that. So find
something that, like, just gets your—like you want to get up to go to work every day.
And it’s going to be different for every person.
Jonathan _____: [00:56:40] Another question from a high school student. “My
comment, my greatest concern is that the government is spending my generation’s
money. What is your most pressing concern for people?”
Ayotte: [00:56:52] Well, I think your pressing concern, whoever asked this question, is
probably one of the biggest, if not the biggest, challenge that this country faces.
Everything I just talked about up there in terms of American strength, if we are not strong
economically and if we continue to borrow and spend—we’re over $17 trillion in debt—
and we don’t get our fiscal house in order, then America can’t have a strong role in the
world, then America can’t have the armed forces we need to defend against threat, then
we aren’t in a strong position to address the challenges that we’re facing.
And I think this is the challenge for our time in the United States Senate, the
biggest challenge, exactly, because if we don’t get this right, then really all the other
issues, they cannot fall in place the way we’d want them to for our country. And frankly,
as young people, you should demand this of your leaders. I mean, you should demand
that we solve this problem and that we don’t hand it to you. And that’s one of the things
I really respect about Mitch’s leadership in the Senate, because this is a huge focus of his,
27
of getting our fiscal house in order.
[00:58:13] So as much as we talked about national security today, you know,
Admiral Mullen, when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “One of the
greatest national security threats to our nation is our debt.” So you’re right to identify
this issue, and as you come to voting age, and I know some of you young people aren’t
quite that age yet, when you get to that age, you should ask your political leaders, “What
are you going to do to address this problem so that I’m not paying for bills and decisions
you weren’t willing to make?”
Gregg: [00:58:46] Dani, do you want to ask the last question, please?
Smith: [00:58:48] Sure. Since it’s the last question, it’s going to be a really important
question. Have you filled out your NCAA men’s basketball championship bracket yet,
and, if so, who do you predict is going to be the NCAA champion this year? [audience
laughter]
Ayotte: [00:59:08] I think I might pass this one on to the Leader. [audience laughter] I
can’t say that I have, actually. I’ve not filled this out, and of all the things that I would
weigh in today, I’m happy to take on the Obama administration on the reset policy, but I
will not pick the winner of the championship, because otherwise it will be difficult to run
for political office again. [audience laughter]
Smith: [00:59:34] Thank you very much. [applause]
28
Willihnganz: [00:59:55] Senator, if you could join me at the podium, we have a small
gift for you. I’d like to say thank you, both, as Gary said, for such a timely topic on an
issue that we’re all very concerned about right now, but more than that, I’d like to thank
you because we’re talking about women and women in leadership, one of the places that
we very much need women leaders is in our legislators and our political offices. So I
want to thank you very much for taking on that particular mantle where women have
been very loathe to be strong leaders in that role. Thank you very much for being here
today.
Ayotte: [01:00:23] Thank you. Thank you. [applause]
Gregg: [01:00:33] Thank you all for coming. If you could remain seated just for a
moment for the platform party to exit the room. Thank you all for coming out today in
this cold, cold day.
[End of presentation]
29